The Dress Code Flips Burger Join case revolves around Ms. Djarra, and Mr. Johnson, where the former is the plaintiff and the latter is the defendant. Therefore, this paper analyzes both the legal issues presented by both parties and the rulings for the presented issues. Ms Djarra accused Mr Johson of religious discrimination. Title VII, according to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, often dubbed EEOC, protects employees against various types of discrimination, such as religious discrimination (Brierton, 2002). Therefore, the law is against discrimination, including creating a hostile work environment, firing, training, job assignments, and pay. At the same time, the law requires reasonable accommodation of workers’ sincerely held religious practices, beliefs, and observances.
Ms Djarra let her boss Johnson know about her religious beliefs and why she would wear a hijab as she observed Ramadan day. Mr Johnson argued in his defence that he did not approve of Ms Djarra’s being out of uniform and the head garment (Rodgers, 2019). Besides, he alleged that he had given Ms Djarra to work through her “issue,” but the girl continued going to work with her religious garment (Brierton, 2002). Therefore, the important issue to solve in this case was whether there was any disparate treatment based on Ms Djarra’s claim that Mr Johnson had treated her differently due to her religious standing and beliefs. If the employer disregarded Ms Djarra’s religious beliefs in the workplace, then the law would consider it a form of discrimination under the United States law under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Facts
The details of this case include Ms Djarra, an employee, who explained that she would wear a head scarf at the workplace as she celebrated the Ramadan holiday. As she wore the headscarf at the workplace, Ms Djarra stated that many people, including customers, would comment about her new look, including being a terrorist, but such comments never threatened her. Her employer, Mr Johnson, argued that he did not fire the girl because of her religious stand but because she did not wear the required uniform (Rodgers, 2019). He argued that he suggested giving her some time off and returning, but she later found no other jobs. Mr Johnson also argued that some employees and customers in the restaurant were uncomfortable with Ms Djarra’s dressing as they felt threatened; this forced him to enforce workplace policy (Findlaw, n.d.). When she arrived at the workplace out of uniform, Mr Johnson argued that he had run out of options and fired him. While insisting on her unfair mistreatment, Ms Djarra stated that some other employees were allowed to work while wearing religious crosses on their necks, and no one was bothered by their dress codes.
Religious Accommodation
There is much to learn about regarding religious accommodations in the workplace, including protecting employees’ rights by providing appropriate accommodations. Like Alamo Car Rental’s case after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, people practising the Muslim religion are often discriminated against compared to their Christian counterparts (Rodgers, 2019). Another Somali customer representative, Alamo’s employee, had her contract terminated in December 2001 due to her refusal to wear a head scarf while celebrating Ramadan (Brierton, 2002).
Determination of Religious Discrimination
Ms Djarra’s initiation of legal action against Flip Burger Store, her former employer, involved submitting claims for preliminary damages on the grounds of religious discrimination. While working for her former employer, it is alleged that Ms Djarra did not adhere to the company’s dress code, leading to her dismissal. She was let go by her immediate supervisor, Mr Johnson. The evidence presented by the defendant and plaintiff revealed that Ms Djarra’s termination was due to her failure to follow the company’s dress code despite repeated warnings. The defendant asserted that Ms Djarra’s imminent dismissal came about after being warned severally and given some time off to observe Ramadan. While arguing her case, Ms Djarra argued that she could not afford to lose her job while observing the holy month of Ramadan.
This case involved a presentation by both parties regarding one’s freedom to practice their religious beliefs at the workplace. It is illegal for one to forbid workers from practising their religious beliefs, including wearing the hijab (Brierton, 2002). The allegations made by the defendant included creating an uncomfortable working environment for both customers and other employees. However, these could not be regarded as valid reasons to terminate the plaintiff’s work contract or forbid her observance of the holy month of Ramadan by wearing a head scarf (Rodgers, 2019). Therefore, it is evident that Mr Johnson’s firing of the former employee had religious motivations.
Mr Johnson’s Reasonable Accommodations
Mr Johnson’s assertions that he allowed Ms Djarra some time off to celebrate the holy month of Ramadan were not made in good faith. Despite the arguments that Mr Johnson accommodated Ms Djarra’s religious practices, there was supporting evidence from the HR department to support this (Findlaw, n.d.). During this period, when Ms Djarra lacked support from her colleagues, the HR department and Mr Johnson should have devised alternative ways to support her emotionally throughout Ramadan.
Types of Damages
This case indicates the violation of Title VII, which revolves around discrimination based on religion, gender, ethnicity, gender identity, national origin, and race. As a result, the constitution recommends various damages that could be awarded to the plaintiff, including punitive and compensatory damages due to intentional discrimination on the grounds of religion. Such a conclusion was reached upon an investigation into the previous case. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, complaints concerning equal employment opportunities be filed within one hundred and eighty days (Brierton, 2002). Mr Johnson should have informed the employee regarding the company’s stand and respect for her religious practices. By doing this, the company might have discovered and evaluated the possible breach of rights on discrimination based on religious perspectives. Ms Djarra’s unfair dismissal and the treatment she received from her colleagues and customers meant that she deserved compensatory damages as provided for under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was only fair that Ms Djarra be awarded compensatory damages due to the discrimination she faced at the workplace (Findlaw, n.d.). Besides, it would be fair to reimburse her for the time she lost after being dismissed from the workplace and the legal expenses she expended through the court process.
Conclusion
This case offers an in-depth understanding of workplace discrimination and the subsequent damages as provided for under the US Constitution. Discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is evident since Flip Burger’s manager did not accommodate religious diversity in the workplace. Ms Djarra’s mistreatment and unfair dismissal were due to her religious beliefs. As a result, it would be fair to award her compensatory damages due to the unfair dismissal because of her religious beliefs.
References
Brierton, T. D. (2002). Reasonable Accommodation under Title VII: Is It Reasonable to the Religious Employee. Cath. Law., 42, 165.
Findlaw. (n.d.). FindLaw’s United States first circuit case and opinions. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-1st-circuit/1308549.html
Rodgers, W. M. (2019). Race in the labor market: The role of equal employment opportunity and other policies. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 5(5), 198–220.
write